tv [untitled] June 27, 2011 1:00am-1:30am PDT
kind of suspicious, in my opinion, the department of public health puts forth all of these platitudes about ethical conduct, compliance, concerns, rules, etc., get in actual practice, they go after their own valuable employees, like myself, just for whistle- blowing. these are actual fact. i am still requesting the board of supervisors to hold a hearing on the department of public health and if they are as clean as some people say. let's put it in writing and all of us will then shut up. but the department of public health needs to be cleaned up, it is your duty to do it. i think this committee is a starting point and deserves credit for at least holding hearings on the department of public health. in my own opinion, senior persons inside city hall have
made a conscious effort to stop my consistent efforts just to question what is going on at the department of public health, and in my opinion, it is a sad state of affairs of the department of public health -- [tone] supervisor campos: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> mr. chairman, honorable committee, members, i am dr. aurelius walker from bayview- hunters point. the african-american revitalization organization -- i am appalled. i looked at an article and it said -- it was a press release.
m "ayr lee -- "merayor lee applauds." lieutenant governor gavin newsom, state controllers, recognition of the hunters point shipyard, a model for redevelopment. i want to applaud the health department of the city. we have an outstanding health department. amy brownell was outstanding. in the face of public insult, public attacks, she still did her job. on one occasion, they went out to do some research on nosebleeds. it was intimidating. they had to stop their research because of the attacks and all
of that. one of the things i'm concerned about, supervisors, is last summer, the shipyard's project was approved. the board of supervisors, six other city boards, and the two community advisory groups with jurisdiction over the site, and the citizen committee, the same old, and become a dead rhetoric is what we have been hearing all this time. [tone] supervisor campos: if there is any other member of the public would like to speak, please come forward. good afternoon. >> mr. campos, supervisors, real briefly, the health department may have employee issues. i don't know. i am not in the health department. but certainly, we should absolutely not allow that to be a backdoor way of undoing what
the citizens of this city overwhelmingly supported in the shipyards and the board of supervisors support it, also. someone has said, let the chips fall where they may. the chips have fallen. this project was overwhelmingly support it. it needs to go forward. the thing that disturbs me the most, on this issue and a lot of other things, i have -- i am representing the san francisco naacp and our church -- the thing that kind of really gets me is that we love to talk about the environment, but somehow, those who seem so concerned by the environment never allow children who are hurting and living in poverty, people who are unemployed, somehow, those
people never disturb their environmental landscape. that messes with my environment. having clean air does not do me any good if it is being preached by unemployed, hurting, and hungry people. we need this economic revitalization and we need to move this forward. thank you so much. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? next speaker. i would ask that we respect each other. everyone has an opinion. >> thank you. my name is sheila. i am not with none of these people. i want to say one thing. this is an inhaler, right here. this is an inhaler that a lot of us have to use because of the toxins in the air and the exposure that we have no control of. having said that, i just think that everyone has said what
needs to be said. this honorable committee will make educated decisions on this issue. i would like to leave you with, we need action now that holds regulators accountable and demonstrates the environmental racism and unethical behavior that will not be tolerated in san francisco. i say that as a native san franciscan. we do appreciate clean air. i really appreciate clean air. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak to has not spoken? if so, please come forward. public comment is closed. colleagues, i want to make a couple of points. one thing i want to say, i would ask the doctor if he could come
forward. as i indicated, legally, we cannot delve into any specific item or case. there are a number of issues that may be implicated. the one thing that i would say, having read some of the e-mails that are being referenced, the implication that somehow anyone in the department of public health, i am not saying it is true or not, but the way the e- mails read, it does create issues about the arm a's length relationship that we talked about. i think it is important that you mention the importance of providing additional training so that people understand very clearly what their obligations are and what their obligations in terms of neutrality are. i think it is very important that that be in place. from the perspective of the
board of supervisors, on a given project, i can definitely see how the planning department perhaps as one perspective, one preferred outcome, or that maybe some other department has that preferred outcome, but you don't want anyone in the health department to be playing the role, putting together an argument that was the message -- the language that was used in one of the e-mails. we want you and your staff to be there to give us facts and scientific evidence, and not to put argument together. i think that training is really important. i don't know if you have any thoughts on sort of how that would move forward. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate what you just said. i think that from our perspective, we don't want to be putting together any argument that is supportive in one direction of a policy or decision. we want to produce -- present
the health facts. they speak for themselves. we value health in the society. i give you the facts, people know what to do with them. i think given everything i have heard, every time there is a challenge, an incident of concern, we should use -- we use that as a case study as an opportunity to learn. what happened here? what could we have done better? the shipyard, the work in every project, gives us that opportunity to learn. i will go back, and i will be much more attentive to the way i staff communicates. they mainly communicate with environmental professionals. i think that we have to have -- we should have an internal conversation. we don't want even the perception of favorability to be there. it is something we will look at very closely. we will discuss it together and
go for. supervisor campos: just connected to that, you talked about the process that to follow. i know that with respect to specifics, there is a in investigation -- there is an investigation. how long does that take? how does that work? >> with regard -- i cannot speak to the personnel investigation. supervisor campos: obviously. >> i don't have an answer for that. in terms of the review of the work, regarding article 31 and our shipyard, it has been for multiple reviews by multiple public agencies. i don't think another review of the regulatory work as planned. supervisor campos: ok. call it? supervisor cohen, 84 sitting in with us. supervisor cohen: you talk about certain triggers.
if certain triggers go off, how do you address them? how do you make them right? >> i spoke about triggers in a couple of different contexts. supervisor cohen: in the context of this about dust and dust monitors. when they go off, what is the process? >> this is article 31. this is the regulation of sub- surface activities at parcel a. when a bus monitor is indicating an excessive level of dust -- these are ordinary dust monitors. these are real time monitors. the employees, the people working, should be person looking at the monitor. there should be a person adding
water or other things to reduce the dust. it is not a very -- you do trading activities. if you adequately wet it, use management practices, if most days except the worst temperature, you can control the dust. there should be a feedback loop. supervisor cohen: i am trying to understand, when violations occur, what is the punishment. what is the punishment? >> this is largely it -- it is supposed to be a self compliance mechanism. the monitors are not related to our violation. we had on site the work of dust control and the use of the monitors. it is something the developer is supposed to be responsible for.
if we observe dust that is unregulated or crossing the boundary for over a certain amount of time, we will issue a violation. supervisor cohen: and a violation looks like a fine? >> it is a written notice of violation. the violation will ask them to take additional actions to increase, on a regular basis -- our violations ask them to do a greater number of things. our goal is not punitive. our goal is compliance, low dust. we ask them to take additional protective actions. after we have had an on-site monitor their -- we had a few violations in the early regulations, a learning experience. after we had a physical presence there, after experience with the regulations, we did not observe violations.
we had people there everyday work was going on. supervisor cohen: in the world of violations, think of the entire department. when there are violations on any level, in a project coming in a clinic, how do you assess punitive damages? >> we will assess punitive damage. the board allows us to assess communicative damage only if a violation -- if our requests are not implemented. our goal is compliance. whether it is a food violation or a bedbug violation, typically, we will have an inspector go out there in the matter should be corrected immediately. we will issue a violation and say do these actions to correct the situation during this time. if our violation order is
ignored, it will go to the directors hearing. the director can issue a penalty only if the regulated party did not comply with what the violation request was. that is fairly consistent across all of our regulatory work. supervisor cohen: i need you to better educate me. maybe you can talk to me a little bit about the -- courtney if i am wrong. a couple of years ago, the department of public health did a fairly thorough analysis on the topic of health as part of san francisco. >> that is ongoing war. in the help the development -- healthy development tools, we have a profile of a view and what is worse than in other neighborhoods. supervisor cohen: can you tell
me about the social and environmental factors which contribute to the health conditions of my neighbors in the bay view -- in bayview? >> there is substandard, poorly maintained housing, public housing and section 8 housing as well as private housing. indoor allergens, smoking within homes, mold, and poor ventilation are all factors. air pollution, interestingly, is not so bad. we have put a very comprehensive monitoring system right in that bayview hunters point at 8 schoolyard. we monitored for many toxins. we found the levels in debut -- bayview were no different than
anywhere else in san francisco. chairperson campos: having completed the hearing, i was wondering if we could file this item. if we could take that without objection, i want to thank the department of public health for being here. i'm want to thank all the members of the public who have sat through this hearing. i want to thank supervisor cohen. i hope you have a good day. madam clark, can you call items two and three? >> hearing on the budget analyst work plan for 2011. item three, motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct audits in fiscal year 2011 and 2012 to evaluate a city policy to develop affordable housing, oversight of housing development, and governments of city museums and the academy of sciences. -- governments and city
oversight of museums and the academy of sciences. chairperson campos: i introduced this. i would like the budget analyst to come up. i see they are here. i see ms. campbell is here. i know there are a number of folks in the audience who are here for this item. once we hear from the budget and legislative analyst, we will give them the opportunity to speak if they would like to speak. but this item essentially, supervisor, is an item that outlines the work plan for the budget and legislative analyst forepeak areas of focus for the coming fiscal year. the two pieces that are outlined here, we arrive that after discussing the item with the budget and legislative analyst. in respect of the last piece, the governance and city oversight of various museums, we
look at the kind of reviews that have taken place and look at what has not been reviewed in quite some time. having some discussion and having a study on how these bodies are being governed at the government's is being provided, the information given to the city is something that would be helpful. as we know, the city has had to step in to help. that is why we thought it would be important. >> i am from the budget and legislative analyst's office. for context, the charter gives the board of supervisors the power of inquiry. that is why we have an audit program. the board rules require an audit of all city departments every eight years, which is not
something that happens, but that is a goal. when we look at of its and -- at audits, we also look city-wide out what audits have occurred over time. we look at a matrix and work with the coordinator's office to maintain those programs. in terms of the work plan, we function on a calendar year rather than the fiscal year. the board of supervisors did approve of our work plan for 2011. we are coming forward now because we have completed all audits we have previously been working on, to put the remaining program for 2011. this is through december of 2011. it also is not the entirety of what we have available in terms of resources. chairperson campos: i was wondering on whether you could
say a little bit about that and what supervisors can do. supervisor farrell: how much is left in terms of hours locked off? where are we going to be with these main ones? >> if these audits are approved, we have about 300 hours left in the bank for the next six months of the year. if these were approved, we estimated they would take about 2000 hours. that would leave 1600 hours remaining, which should be sufficient to take on another project. the motion that goes with this hearing does set a priority. it has been the practice of the board to reset those parties as time goes by. there has always been a tremendous flexibility in terms of the audit program and revising it as we go. supervisor farrell: and to be clear, this is not full fiscal year. >> we are talking about through december. supervisor farrell: at what point are we going to come
forward with the next six months of the fiscal year? >> a new work plan will be -- it would begin in january. that would be the time. supervisor farrell: we will be hearing that later this year, i would imagine. >> that is correct. as i said, we still have availability in this year as well. supervisor farrell: ok. >> in context, what we are coming forward with would be two audits, issues that we have identified. the way we identified this is through our work through an audit matrix and issues we have identified either through the legislative item process or to the budget process. on the first program, we would be looking at the issue of effectiveness of the city's affordable housing policies and the planning commission's oversight of the city's affordable housing goals.
this would be a project that would take 1000 to 1200 hours. the focus would be the planning department and what the planning code requires. however, we would look also at other public agencies in terms of their role in overseeing affordable housing development. when we talk about affordable housing, we are talking about the development of units as opposed to other programs that might make available housing to moderate and low-income people. we are looking at the development process. we would be looking, in terms of the planning department -- they are responsible under state law for the housing element of the master plan. the housing element is to be re- evaluated every five years. they just completed the most recent evaluation of may of this year. that is about the need for housing development in the city. it identifies with the need is. there are also other provisions we would look at in terms of
evaluating the effectiveness in terms of the 11 -- in lieu fees required of residential development. chairperson campos: the reason why we thought it would be important to move this forward is that as you know there is a larger discussion at the regional level in terms of sustainable -- a sustainable communities effort. that is going to create some pretty robust housing and transportation obligations for the region. we want to make sure that as we are moving in that direction, where you are talking about 90,000 units being added in san francisco in the next 30 years or so, we are doing what we are supposed to do under our own code. that is one of the things this is trying to look at. >> that is correct. the association of bay area governments has been developing a plan on sustainable housing.
we could look at how san francisco fits into that. the other piece of this is there are other agencies in the planning department that could play a role, and the mayor's office of housing and the development agencies also play a role. supervisor farrell: you talk about low and moderate income housing. does that also include analysis over what is being phrased as workforce housing in the city? is that going to be part of the audit plan? >> we can discuss that. it would probably be something we would want to include. supervisor farrell: that is something i would definitely like to see as part of it. >> we could certainly make that. chairperson campos: president chiu? i want to thank the president for doing double duty with the budget committee, and to think supervisor farrell, who is been
in this room since 9:00 a.m. because he was on the rules committee before. i know there are a number of representatives from various museums. before i do that, i have a question. is the [unintelligible] >> they are part of the fine arts. chairperson campos: i know there are representatives from the academy of science, the war memorial, the young. i do not know if any of them would like to come up and say anything. the idea is that the scope of these reviews is something that would have to be worked out in consultation not only with the rest of the members of this committee, but in consultation with their respective agencies that will be impacted. so the scope is something that would be worked out in the near future.
>> i would like to speak quickly to that, because i have had an opportunity to speak to the rep this morning in the budget committee. the evaluation of the governments of the museum, to talk about the scope, would be looking city-wide, from a city perspective, to define the role of a city asset and the action of operation by our foundation. the scope would be specific to looking at the city's role, what is their responsibility, the information they received. we have a point that talks about governance structure. some of that is what does the charter say and some vehow are ? i think a much more new ones part of this, maybe where there is concern, it is where we talk about oversight of the governing board. how would we approach that? clearly, this is high level. we are looking at four museums. would have to approach it in a
specific topic on a high level as we talk to the department's. the third piece of this, there is a lot of concern about the asian art museum. it is going forward with an rfp for a management consultant to look at their operation. this is not an unusual situation. often we have a different scope and look at things from a different perspective. both audit plans as defined by the gao, the government accountability office, as well as the controller's office -- we would do that in consultation. we would not be stepping on each other's toes. chairperson campos: great. if anyone would like to come up, they are free to do so. otherwise, anyone from the public who would like to speak, you have two minutes. >> i am a resident. i applaud these audits. i would encourage you to have more audits.
secondly, i am a little troubled by the fact you are auditing the asian art museum, when in january you gave them a $100 million loan guarantee out of the general fund. it seems to me that you should do your audits before you prorate funding to city departments and city agencies. thank you. chairperson campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is douglas yen. i would like to think this committee write -- once again for its aggressive stance in doing audits and holding hearings for future audits. it is pretty obvious that since the city is in such dire financial straits every block of money is important, no matter where it comes from, especially blocks of money that are needed by the poor people in san francisco.